Arunesh Ghosh Debate Paper #3 Topic: Is American Culture a Sustainability Problem? 10/24/2011 1842 words
Our economy is in the gutter. Everywhere we hear the same message; increasing joblessness, poverty, and a declining stock market. No one would say our economy currently is very “successful”, but this statement in itself brings to the forefront the question of what terms such as “success” and “growth” even mean? Historically speaking, a healthy economy has always been one that is in perpetual growth. If one stops right there, it doesn’t take long to realize that perhaps our very economic system and the measures we use to evaluate it by might be completely unsustainable. How can a system, which depends on continuous, infinite growth possibly be deemed sustainable? This further brings to light the ultimate question of whether or not the American economy, which has long been the flagship for entrepreneurship and capitalism, in itself is a sustainability problem. With the definition of economic success and GDP on the line, the contenders and stakeholders in the issue are as numerous and influential as they are difficult to identify. Our entire stock market depends on investor perception of the growth and success of different companies in conjunction with how much risk they are willing to take with a company. With this risk factor in mind, it is near impossible to identify all the specific entities responsible for the creation and sustenance of such a broken system, rather it is more effective to evaluate the forces that maintain it and the resource hungry American culture that has resulted.
Though often dismissed by the hard-line conservatives as “tree-huggers” and “hippies”, those concerned with the sustainability of our economy have many rather pressing and interesting points to make. The speech segment by Naomi Klein: Addicted to Risk, seriously questions many of the continuing practices and patterns of the American mindset. One of the primary arguments presented by the film is an alternate view to the age old question of climate change. Instead of asking “What if we’re wrong?” Klein suggests we approach the problem with the mindset of “What if we’re right?”In essence, the segment brings to light the high risk mentality that the American political and corporate models follow; the mindset of constantly optimizing has morphed the ideology of sustainability initiatives with a mindset of implementation at the last possible moment. The speech narrows this “high-risk” mentality into three leading causes, greed, hubris, and in general the recklessness of men. Though I can see some sort reason behind the argument of greed and hubris fueling many of these decisions, the argument that the current corporate and political climate is due to that of being run by men however doesn’t seem to have significant scientific backing. Though it may be possible that the attitudes of men, who typically spearhead major political and corporate entities may be more aggressive than those of women, the film did not provide enough evidence to convince me of its validity; rather it appeared as an attempt to appeal to the studio audience which was comprised primarily of women. The yes argument brought to light possible problems at the root of the issue. In sharp contrast, the no argument, though most certainly not a sustainable option, is presented in a much more eloquent and convincing manner.
During the 1980’s America was in a time of high political tension with the Soviet Union. Not only was the political climate between the two countries tense, but both sides were butting heads on nearly every issue to keep up national morale. With this intense pressure riding on the candidates shoulders, Mr. Reagan had to pick his words carefully. Appealing to the pathos of the weary American public, Mr. Reagan refused to allow our standard of living to drop, after all why should we not enjoy the fruits of our hard and precious labor? This argument, at least the angle from which the future president was pitching his case was understandable, considering the circumstances. At the time we were locked in head to head competition with the Soviet Union, and any step in reducing our competitiveness could be perceived as weakness by the American community. Because of this, Mr. Reagan, instead of downscaling production and lowering our standard of living, recommended a shift in emphasis on what he called efficiency. Efficiency was used in a rather broad sense and was intended in a more corporate and industrial sense, reducing waste yet continuing production and expansion efforts. The speech also was in line with mainstream conservative practices of reduced taxation and decreased government involvement and regulation.
In many ways, the entire mentality of the American public at this time was not geared towards sustainability initiatives at all. Much of the focus was aimed towards winning the Cold War with Russia; in many ways this could be seen as the entirely opposite view of what would be considered “sustainable”. Furthermore much of the government funded research was focused more towards maintaining a competitive and aggressive foreign policy rather than domestic sustainability initiatives. In this respect, much of the information highlighted by the media in regards to scientific developments was in accordance with this competitive mentality. Though unsustainable, it was this fangs-bared, aggressive attitude that catapulted us to the dominant world power we are feebly holding onto today. This undying spirit of hard work and the subsequent payoff has always encouraged entrepreneurship within the United States. This entrepreneurship though should be viewed as a double edged sword, for though it promotes competitive industry, it more often than not fuels industry with an unsustainable mindset. What is perhaps even more concerning is that this aggressive, often unsustainable mindset is spreading, sowing the seeds of unsustainable practices on a global level.
A recent book by Fareed Zakaria on post-American world order takes a unique look at American entrepreneurship and how it is gradually becoming “America’s best export” What this might mean in terms of a global impact are subject to debate. Zakaria notes that in the modern global market, venture capital markets have exploded in China from next to nothing to nearly 1.4 billion in 2007. A similar occurrence can be seen in countries such as India reaching nearly 1 billion in capital investments in 2007 as well. Though this can be seen as a great success in terms of GDP for these countries, not only does it detract from the already scarce job market in the States, but it in a way spawns new-age demons of our own earlier, resource consuming corporate patterns. Many of these budding corporations are being started by individuals are trained in elite business school within the United States and some companies are even partially owned by existing corporations with limited interest in sustainable practices.
This dispersion of American capitalism comes of course with the inherent risks associated with American Capitalism discussed by Naomi Klein. Can it really be expected of these young, ambitious, and recently highly successful business leaders to care about sustainability within the “What if we’re right?” mentality mentioned before? The odds are unlikely. When sustainability initiatives are at odds with the potential for high profit margins and corporate expansion, the former tends to be relegated to the back burner. Instead of focusing on early implementation within production loops before a potentially unsustainable infrastructure is established, the aggressive, risk addicted American model of entrepreneurship would most likely favor implementation at the last possible moment. To further complicate issues, one of the main reasons corporations have begun heavily investing in nations such as China and India are the slightly more relaxed rules and regulations in place. This, unfortunately creates conditions eerily similar to free for all, dog-eat-dog environment of early American oil and railroad monopolies which could be viewed as the epitome of unregulated American Business. Monopolies that bred the unsustainable American culture we see today
There are some factors however, that may have been overlooked by Mr. Zakaria. For one, many of these countries have fundamentally different cultural and religious norms that could possibly affect working culture in ways that would be difficult to predict. India for example, has an incredibly large population in a relatively small area with limited resources. Thus, “American Capitalism” though setting the groundwork for future entrepreneurial ventures, could quickly hybridize with existing norms, for better or for worse. Perhaps the hyper competitive environment would accelerate destructive corporate practices, further degrading the already strained natural environment. Or perhaps individuals in these countries, already accustomed to limited resources and the importance of sustainability, would view growth in a different light. Thus, to say American entrepreneurship is our “greatest export” may be a slightly inaccurate statement. It is very possible that these seeds could lead to the creation of more hybridized mentality. This mindset can either be even more aggressive and destructive than its predecessors, or one that is highly aware of the importance of sustainability and the global consequences that could result if proactive measures are not taken early on. Unguided, the spread of “American Entrepreneurship” and the wasteful culture associated with it could in fact accelerate the environmental degradation and overall plight of the planet. With some slight reforms however in education and government incentives, a more sustainable corporate environment and culture could be created.
One possible way to avert this crisis is by implementing sustainability initiatives early on. Government incentives, instead of rewarding pure growth could reward corporations that proactively implement sustainable initiatives in their corporate models. In addition and perhaps more importantly, sustainable education should be incorporated in business and management curriculums in all levels of higher education. This two pronged approach would slowly yet steadily redefine what managers and executives view as “success”. Instead of viewing success as simply favorable profit margins, the definition can slowly begin to successful sustainability initiatives as a determining factor as well. This must be supplemented by increased general sustainability education as well. If the consumer is more aware of the consequences of his or her decisions then perhaps present cultural expectations would begin to shift. Only through a combination of pressure from the government in conjunction with a gradual realignment of corporate goals and policies, along with increased sustainability education can corporate, political, and cultural priorities be shifted. Again, the key is the early implementation of these ideals as corporate practices and cultures are increasingly difficult to reform once established.
In conclusion, there can be little doubt that American culture is a type of sustainability problem. What is more concerning perhaps is the rapid expansion and diffusion of the same entrepreneurship and corporate models that are responsible for this cultural problem. We cannot allow this to happen, the planet simply cannot support another resource draining culture on the scale of the United States. Measures must be implemented early on, while industries are in their budding stages rather than when corporations are locked into an infrastructure. Though it will be incredibly difficult to change the resource hungry expectations and culture of the American public, we can most certainly prevent other countries from following suite.
Debate Paper #3
Topic: Is American Culture a Sustainability Problem?
10/24/2011
1842 words
Our economy is in the gutter. Everywhere we hear the same message; increasing joblessness, poverty, and a declining stock market. No one would say our economy currently is very “successful”, but this statement in itself brings to the forefront the question of what terms such as “success” and “growth” even mean? Historically speaking, a healthy economy has always been one that is in perpetual growth. If one stops right there, it doesn’t take long to realize that perhaps our very economic system and the measures we use to evaluate it by might be completely unsustainable. How can a system, which depends on continuous, infinite growth possibly be deemed sustainable? This further brings to light the ultimate question of whether or not the American economy, which has long been the flagship for entrepreneurship and capitalism, in itself is a sustainability problem. With the definition of economic success and GDP on the line, the contenders and stakeholders in the issue are as numerous and influential as they are difficult to identify. Our entire stock market depends on investor perception of the growth and success of different companies in conjunction with how much risk they are willing to take with a company. With this risk factor in mind, it is near impossible to identify all the specific entities responsible for the creation and sustenance of such a broken system, rather it is more effective to evaluate the forces that maintain it and the resource hungry American culture that has resulted.
Though often dismissed by the hard-line conservatives as “tree-huggers” and “hippies”, those concerned with the sustainability of our economy have many rather pressing and interesting points to make. The speech segment by Naomi Klein: Addicted to Risk, seriously questions many of the continuing practices and patterns of the American mindset. One of the primary arguments presented by the film is an alternate view to the age old question of climate change. Instead of asking “What if we’re wrong?” Klein suggests we approach the problem with the mindset of “What if we’re right?”In essence, the segment brings to light the high risk mentality that the American political and corporate models follow; the mindset of constantly optimizing has morphed the ideology of sustainability initiatives with a mindset of implementation at the last possible moment.
The speech narrows this “high-risk” mentality into three leading causes, greed, hubris, and in general the recklessness of men. Though I can see some sort reason behind the argument of greed and hubris fueling many of these decisions, the argument that the current corporate and political climate is due to that of being run by men however doesn’t seem to have significant scientific backing. Though it may be possible that the attitudes of men, who typically spearhead major political and corporate entities may be more aggressive than those of women, the film did not provide enough evidence to convince me of its validity; rather it appeared as an attempt to appeal to the studio audience which was comprised primarily of women. The yes argument brought to light possible problems at the root of the issue. In sharp contrast, the no argument, though most certainly not a sustainable option, is presented in a much more eloquent and convincing manner.
During the 1980’s America was in a time of high political tension with the Soviet Union. Not only was the political climate between the two countries tense, but both sides were butting heads on nearly every issue to keep up national morale. With this intense pressure riding on the candidates shoulders, Mr. Reagan had to pick his words carefully. Appealing to the pathos of the weary American public, Mr. Reagan refused to allow our standard of living to drop, after all why should we not enjoy the fruits of our hard and precious labor? This argument, at least the angle from which the future president was pitching his case was understandable, considering the circumstances. At the time we were locked in head to head competition with the Soviet Union, and any step in reducing our competitiveness could be perceived as weakness by the American community. Because of this, Mr. Reagan, instead of downscaling production and lowering our standard of living, recommended a shift in emphasis on what he called efficiency. Efficiency was used in a rather broad sense and was intended in a more corporate and industrial sense, reducing waste yet continuing production and expansion efforts. The speech also was in line with mainstream conservative practices of reduced taxation and decreased government involvement and regulation.
In many ways, the entire mentality of the American public at this time was not geared towards sustainability initiatives at all. Much of the focus was aimed towards winning the Cold War with Russia; in many ways this could be seen as the entirely opposite view of what would be considered “sustainable”. Furthermore much of the government funded research was focused more towards maintaining a competitive and aggressive foreign policy rather than domestic sustainability initiatives. In this respect, much of the information highlighted by the media in regards to scientific developments was in accordance with this competitive mentality. Though unsustainable, it was this fangs-bared, aggressive attitude that catapulted us to the dominant world power we are feebly holding onto today. This undying spirit of hard work and the subsequent payoff has always encouraged entrepreneurship within the United States. This entrepreneurship though should be viewed as a double edged sword, for though it promotes competitive industry, it more often than not fuels industry with an unsustainable mindset. What is perhaps even more concerning is that this aggressive, often unsustainable mindset is spreading, sowing the seeds of unsustainable practices on a global level.
A recent book by Fareed Zakaria on post-American world order takes a unique look at American entrepreneurship and how it is gradually becoming “America’s best export” What this might mean in terms of a global impact are subject to debate. Zakaria notes that in the modern global market, venture capital markets have exploded in China from next to nothing to nearly 1.4 billion in 2007. A similar occurrence can be seen in countries such as India reaching nearly 1 billion in capital investments in 2007 as well. Though this can be seen as a great success in terms of GDP for these countries, not only does it detract from the already scarce job market in the States, but it in a way spawns new-age demons of our own earlier, resource consuming corporate patterns. Many of these budding corporations are being started by individuals are trained in elite business school within the United States and some companies are even partially owned by existing corporations with limited interest in sustainable practices.
This dispersion of American capitalism comes of course with the inherent risks associated with American Capitalism discussed by Naomi Klein. Can it really be expected of these young, ambitious, and recently highly successful business leaders to care about sustainability within the “What if we’re right?” mentality mentioned before? The odds are unlikely. When sustainability initiatives are at odds with the potential for high profit margins and corporate expansion, the former tends to be relegated to the back burner. Instead of focusing on early implementation within production loops before a potentially unsustainable infrastructure is established, the aggressive, risk addicted American model of entrepreneurship would most likely favor implementation at the last possible moment. To further complicate issues, one of the main reasons corporations have begun heavily investing in nations such as China and India are the slightly more relaxed rules and regulations in place. This, unfortunately creates conditions eerily similar to free for all, dog-eat-dog environment of early American oil and railroad monopolies which could be viewed as the epitome of unregulated American Business. Monopolies that bred the unsustainable American culture we see today
There are some factors however, that may have been overlooked by Mr. Zakaria. For one, many of these countries have fundamentally different cultural and religious norms that could possibly affect working culture in ways that would be difficult to predict. India for example, has an incredibly large population in a relatively small area with limited resources. Thus, “American Capitalism” though setting the groundwork for future entrepreneurial ventures, could quickly hybridize with existing norms, for better or for worse. Perhaps the hyper competitive environment would accelerate destructive corporate practices, further degrading the already strained natural environment. Or perhaps individuals in these countries, already accustomed to limited resources and the importance of sustainability, would view growth in a different light. Thus, to say American entrepreneurship is our “greatest export” may be a slightly inaccurate statement. It is very possible that these seeds could lead to the creation of more hybridized mentality. This mindset can either be even more aggressive and destructive than its predecessors, or one that is highly aware of the importance of sustainability and the global consequences that could result if proactive measures are not taken early on. Unguided, the spread of “American Entrepreneurship” and the wasteful culture associated with it could in fact accelerate the environmental degradation and overall plight of the planet. With some slight reforms however in education and government incentives, a more sustainable corporate environment and culture could be created.
One possible way to avert this crisis is by implementing sustainability initiatives early on. Government incentives, instead of rewarding pure growth could reward corporations that proactively implement sustainable initiatives in their corporate models. In addition and perhaps more importantly, sustainable education should be incorporated in business and management curriculums in all levels of higher education. This two pronged approach would slowly yet steadily redefine what managers and executives view as “success”. Instead of viewing success as simply favorable profit margins, the definition can slowly begin to successful sustainability initiatives as a determining factor as well. This must be supplemented by increased general sustainability education as well. If the consumer is more aware of the consequences of his or her decisions then perhaps present cultural expectations would begin to shift. Only through a combination of pressure from the government in conjunction with a gradual realignment of corporate goals and policies, along with increased sustainability education can corporate, political, and cultural priorities be shifted. Again, the key is the early implementation of these ideals as corporate practices and cultures are increasingly difficult to reform once established.
In conclusion, there can be little doubt that American culture is a type of sustainability problem. What is more concerning perhaps is the rapid expansion and diffusion of the same entrepreneurship and corporate models that are responsible for this cultural problem. We cannot allow this to happen, the planet simply cannot support another resource draining culture on the scale of the United States. Measures must be implemented early on, while industries are in their budding stages rather than when corporations are locked into an infrastructure. Though it will be incredibly difficult to change the resource hungry expectations and culture of the American public, we can most certainly prevent other countries from following suite.
Works Cited
Bussgang, Jeff. "Entrepreneurship as America’s Greatest Export." Web log comment. Businessweek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. Businessweek, 24 June 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.businessweek.com/business_at_work/business_entrepreneur/archives/2008/06/entrepreneurshi.html>.
Naomi Klein: Addicted to Risk. Perf. Naomi Klein. TED: Ideas worth Spreading. Jan. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_klein_addicted_to_risk.html>.
Reagan, Ronald. "Official Announcement of Candidacy For President." Speech. Reagan2020.us. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://reagan2020.us/speeches/candidacy_announcement.asp>.